Chennai Court January 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M.J. Irani Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Special Deputy C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ253
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. The petitioner, who is the owner of the land and building in S. No. 1304, Mylapore, Madras, has alleged that the provisions of the Mylapore-Teynampet Area Town Planning Scheme have injuriously affected his property in that the road to be formed as a link road would destroy the safety and privacy of his bungalow. He has, therefore prayed that this Court should issue a writ of certiorari and quash the land acquisition proceedings started by notice dated 29th March, 1963 in so far as it affects his property.2. In order to improve the amenities in Mylapore-Teynampet area, the State Government introduced the Mylapore-Teynampet Area Town Planning Scheme and accordingly issued a notification under Section 12 of the Town Planning Act in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 13th May, 1941. The submission of the scheme took sometime, and finally the Scheme was sanctioned by Government under Section 14(3) and (5) of the Act and published in the Gazette on 18th May, 1960. In ...
Ratan Chand Chordia Vs. the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1967
Reported in: [1967]19STC286(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution is a financier. He claims to have lent money to one Mallayan Chettiar, Shevvapet, Salem, for purchasing the lorry M.D.F. 1475, under two hire-purchase agreements, the first one on 11th May, 1959, and the second one on 29th April, 1961. This Mallayan Chettiar was a sales tax assessee and for arrears of sales tax due from him, the respondent, the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Collection), Salem, attached the lorry in question and was proposing to bring it to revenue sale under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. On the short ground that under the terms of the hire-purchase agreement the vehicle in question belongs to the petitioner, the financier, and not the sales tax assessee Mallayan Chettiar, the petitioner has sought in this writ proceeding for a writ quashing the proceedings of the respondent attaching the lorry and directing i...
Chinnappan (H.) Vs. Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1967
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ352Mad
Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed for quashing the order of the presiding officer, labour court, Coimbatore, dated 17 December 1969, holding that the inability of the management of Kaleeswarar Mille, Ltd., Coimbatore, to give work to the petitioner and the other workers from 18 August 1958 to 31 October 1959, would not amount to lay-off.2. The Kaleeswarar Mills, Colmbatore, was closed on 8 December 1953, and was reopened on 12 November 1969. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was no closure but only a lay-off during the period in question. The Kaleeswarar Mills, Coimbatore, was running at a loss. The balance sheet, Ex. M. 5. for the year ending with 31 December 1967, showed a loss of Rs. 6,43,765, and the balance sheet, Ex. M. 6, for the year ending 31 December 1958, showed a loss of Rs. 15,21,768. The total loss for the years 1957 and 1958 had amounted to Rs. 22.75,743. The auditor, who went into the affairs of the mills submitted a report, Ex. M. 32, on 19 May 1958...
M. Chinnappan Vs. the Management of Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ23
ORDERP. S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed for quashing the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore dated 17th December, 1965, holding that the inability of the Management of Kaleeswarar Mills Limited, Coimbatore to give work to the petitioner and the other workers from 13th August, 1958 to 31st October, 1959 would not amount to lay-off.2. The Kaleeswarar Mills, Coimbatore was closed on 8th December, 1958, and was reopened on 12th November, 1959. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was no closure but only a lay-off during the period in question. The Kaleeswarar Mills, Coimbatore was running at a loss. The balance-sheet, M-5, for the year ending with 31st December, 1957, showed a loss of Rs. 6,43,765, and the balance-sheet M-6, for the year ending 31st December, 1958, showed a loss of Rs. 15,21,768. The total loss for the years 1957 and 1958 amounted to Rs. 22,75,743. The auditor, who went into the affairs of the Mills submitted a report, M-32, on 19...
Palaniswami Naicker Vs. Chinnaswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ502
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. Both the Courts below described the suit as a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. But, on a fair reading of the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiff asked for a declaration that he is entitled to use the pathway in question for taking his cart, cattle etc., and sequently asked for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant or his men from obstructing such user by the plaintiff of the suit pathway. In effect, therefore, the suit is for a declaration of right to use the suit pathway. Learned Counsel for the appellant took me through paras, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the plaint to show that the relief asked for by the plaintiff is one for a declaration that he is entitled to an easement or right of way within the meaning of Section 15 of the Easements Act and that in substance and in the appellant.2. The plaintiff purchased the property marked ABCDE in the sketch annexed to the plaint under Exhibit A-4...
Rajasthan Investment Corporation Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC500(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition is the Rajasthan Investment Corporation. The petitioner makes the following allegations in the affidavit appended to the petition. The petitioner carries on business as a financier of hire-purchase transactions and motor vehicles. The nature of the transactions is to advance moneys on the security of motor cars to people who want to purchase cars. But the transactions do not constitute sales within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and the petitioner is not a dealer as defined under that Act. Nevertheless on 11th May, 1964, the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thyagarayanagar, issued a notice to the petitioner as below:Messrs Rajasthan. Investment Corporation are doing the business of hire-purchase of automobiles. During the year 1958-59 they have had transactions to the extent of Rs. 24,224. As the assessees are the fir...
The Modern theatres Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Superintendent of Central Exci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ355
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. Messrs. the Modern Theatres Limited, Salem, (Writ-appellant in W.A. No. 370 of 1964) produced a film entitled 'Sahasra Chircheda Approva Chintamani' in the Telugu language (Talkie), concerning which the relevant particulars are these. 42,053 metres of footage of this film had been exposed and completed before 1st March, 1960. 65,358 metres of this film were exposed and completed after 1st March, 1960. With regard to both these lengths of the film, the Producers paid tax at 50 naya paise per metre on 30th March, 1960, totalling Rs. 53,705-50.2. This payment was made 'under protest' by the Modern Theatres Limited, for the simple reason that, according to them, the levy itself could only relate to the length of the film exposed and completed, subsequent to 1st March, 1960. According to the records of the Producers, the footage previously referred to by us, namely, 42,053 metres, had been exposed and completed on 29th February, 1960 itself. In the letter by the P...
Rani Ammal Vs. Rathnasabapathi Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Mad424
ORDER(1) The question for consideration in this application by way of appeal from the Master's order is whether the applicant could be deemed to be a pauper within the meaning of Or. 33 rule 1 C. P.C. The explanation to the above rule defines a 'pauper' as a person who is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in the suit proposed to be instituted, or, where no fee is prescribed when such person is not entitled to property worth Rs. 100 other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject matter of the suit.(2) The suit proposed to be instituted in this case is for petition and possession of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties and for past mesne profits of a sum of Rs. 60,000 and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2500 a month. Plaint A schedule-immovable properties are of the value of Rs. 7,15,760 and B schedule immovable properties are of the value of Rs. 1,76,760, and C schedule immovable Rs. 2,60,960-80. The C ...
Mangalambiga Lodge Vs. Kutti Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1967
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ347Mad
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, the management of Mangalambiga Lodge, a hotel in Thanjavur, dismissed three of its workers, Kutti Krishnan (respondent in Writ Petition No. 860 of 1864), Ramaswami (respondent in Writ Petition No. 861 of 1964), and Gurunathan (respondent in Writ Petition No. 862 of 1964) on the ground that as cleaners in the hotel, they refused to do the task of backyard work, that is, removing fuel from the backyard to the even, a work which they were asked to do as part of cleaners' duty. The management conducted a domestic enquiry at which the workers refused to take part and went away in the middle of the enquiry. Thereafter, the management terminated their services. The workers appealed under Section 19(2) of the Madras Catering Establishments Act, 1958, to the appellate authority, namely, the labour officer, Tiruchirappalli. Before that officer the workers pleaded that the management did not at all hold an enquiry, but what they made was an attempt to obtain ...
S. Kanagasabapathi Pillai and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad327; [1968]67ITR735(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.(1) The assessee, at the relevant time, was a working partner in the firm of V.T.V. Dharmaperumal Pillai, which carried on business at No. 72 Fourth Cross St. Colombo. He was also a partner in another firm, S.K. Kanagasabapathi Pillai and Co., having its head office at Dindigul and branch offices at Tuticorin and Colombo. He has been assessed in the status of an individual and as a resident and ordinary resident. For the assessment year 1955-56 corresponding to the accounting year ended February 1, 1955, he was assessed on a total income which included Rs. 10253, as foreign income after deducting the statutory allowance under the Third Proviso to Sec. 4(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922. The total foreign income consisted of Rs. 2400 as salary and the balance, as working share of the assessee's of profits. In the firm of V.T.V. Dharmaperumal Pillai, the Income-tax Officer noticed that a sum of Rs. 15,000 had been credited to the assessee's personal account in the books of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »